OK - my apology then. With that change I would say there is differences between Kitty Hawk and a modern airport also.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Dave. > > However, it is easy to say, do identical test side by side, but hard to > demonstrate boundary conditions regarding heat transfer parameters are also > the same. > > Thus, the testing should use easy to measure electrical heat sources and > assure voltage is measured across each heater/reactor as well as amperage. > That way, even if the resistance is not the same, the respective power can > be determined for each test. At least 3 t/c's should be used along the > outside of the reactor to monitor external temperatures. The pressure > manometer that Parkhomov used would also be desirable. > > Induction heating, as Dave has indicated, would allow only a less accurate > determination of actual input power than the resistance heating with the > Kanthal wire. > > Care should be taken to assure that the magnetic fields caused by the > Kanthal wire winding can be calculated considering the wire configuration > and amperage at any time with errors based on configuration tolerances. > > A varying magnetic field will cause induction heating of the reactor > materials in addition to the resistance heating in the Kanthal and needs to > be determined--estimated--for each case. Thus, electrical resistances > (conductance) of the various reactor materials as a function of temperature > should be used for such estimation. Hopefully it can be shown that this > inductive heating is small compared to the resistive heating. As materials > change from solid crystals to liquid metal, inductive heating changes can > be expected. However the relatively small quantities of liquid metal > possible (Li metal) should limit the heating of the reactor by this mode. > Crystal phase changes may also cause changes in electrical conductivity and > should be evaluated. (It may be that Jack Cole's recent experience with > melting of his reactor materials was actually an electrical short that > occurred as melting or phase changes happened around the heater wire.) > > Convection cooling of each test is important to know and assure is the > same or close to the same, if temperatures are to be indicative of excess > power. Thus, ambient air temperatures should be measured at symmetrical > points for each of the tests, with air flows at each test being known and > controlled as close to the same value as possible. Errors on measured > parameters should be estimated with justification based on experimentation > and validation of the monitoring setup. This may not be easy to do > and should be aided by good calculations of a heat transfer model with > appropriate heat transfer parameters. Air flow meters may be warranted, at > least during the model validation process. Examination of the respective > test set ups after the testing should confirm the expected heat transfer > parameters, including the thermal conductivity of the alumina tube, that > were used in the model. If the alumina loses its insulation property > because of the fuel loading at any given temperature, it would be expected > that temperatures at the outer surface would go up if conductivity went up. > > Finally, testing at each power level should be held long enough to reach a > thermal equilibrium condition--no temperature changes for a time > period--say 5 times the time period of the power increase. The control > test which is not expected to incur material changes, should be cooled and > retested under the same test schedule to confirm it is repeatable with no > material property changes. The fuel-loaded test should include multiple > tests with only small variations in the quantity of the fuel loading. A > minor deminimus loading should produce the same result as a control test. > As I previously suggested to Jack Cole, it may be easier to control the > LENR reaction with a smaller more diffuse fuel loading. > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 7:58 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Am I the only one.. > > That would ensure that the induced current within the coils was very > close. If the induction heater operates at 60 hertz then you are going to > have a very hard time getting enough current to flow inside the coils. > This is because the resistance of the wires is far, far greater than what > is observed within a metal pan. I don't think your plan will work unless > RF is used for the source power. > > Of course you will have to consider the direct heating of the fuel due to > the changing magnetic field. Recall that one of the Russian companies that > the MFMP guy visited is using induction heating that is only applied to the > fuel plus without any other coils. > > Why not use the normal easy to measure systems? > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Mar 20, 2015 10:48 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Am I the only one.. > > Matter of fact, the windings of the two tubes to be tested can > be > cross-connected as one circuit so that induced power is identical > > > * Start with an 1800 watt induction “hob” or hot plate - $70 from > Amazon. > http://www.amazon.com/Rosewill-1800-Watt-Induction-Stainless-RHAI-13001/dp/B > 00GTZMHOW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426860024&sr=8-2&keywords=induction+cooker > > * Use > Kanthal windings on both tubes - of identical length and turns. > Current is > induced into the Kanthal wire by the hob. Then test the two > samples in > different orientations, but always side by side on the hob so as > to eliminate > the complaint that induction coupling is not the same for > both. > > >
